Skip to main content

Dr. Martin (Michael) Luther King, Jr. was a republican?
http://www.meckgop.com/news.php?id-231

The article is dated: Monday, August 14, 2006
"Why Martin Luther King Was A
Republican by Frances Rice

Always Remember that: "Anytime We As A People Are Not Having Our WaySomeone Else Is Having Theirs...And It's Never To Our Advantage."

Original Post

Replies sorted oldest to newest

The very fact that this appears on a 'GOP' site, and within 60 days of a national election should make one know another page of the 'Big Lie' is being turned.

Unfortunately, the Republican Party knows that you can say almost anything about our icons, and someone will either believe it or hold it up for someone to 'prove it's not true'.

Were this true, the Republican Party would have been 'out front' with this decades ago.

PEACE

Jim Chester
Confused

AND????

You must know with the republicans having the reputation of "The Party Of Lincoln" that it was not unusual for blacks to be republicans until the time of the

SOUTHERN STRATEGY - political campaigns based on the denial of opportunity to blacks

AND WHICH

with REAGAN's WILLIE HORTON TACTICS
AND CLINTON'S WELFARE REFORM PLATFORM
AND ALLEN'S MACACA INNUENDO
AND MCCAINS ALLEGED BLACK CHILD IN SOUTH CAROLINA

ARE still being played today...

Why don't u know that Blacks were Repubs?

That the Republican's party of lincoln is not the party today it was in its inception?
quote:
Originally posted by negrospiritual:
Confused

AND????

You must know with the republicans having the reputation of "The Party Of Lincoln" that it was not unusual for blacks to be republicans until the time of the

SOUTHERN STRATEGY - political campaigns based on the denial of opportunity to blacks

...

Why don't u know that Blacks were Repubs?

That the Republican's party of lincoln is not the party today it was in its inception?


In agreement. No suprise on MLK Jr. being a republican.
reprinted excerpt from Southern Political Dominance Thread:

"Though political commentators may feel more comfortable blaming Democrats for "losing" the South, the fault could more fairly be spread around. It would include the Republican leadership that has built its political base in the South through more than a quarter century of a cynical "Southern Strategy" that exploited the painful Southern legacy of racial discrimination.The fault also could be shared by Southern whites who long have found reasons – whether cultural or religious – to discriminate against vulnerable members of society. For many years, African-Americans were the chief targets of this bigotry. Today, much of the conservative outrage is directed at gays.

In both cases, the perpetrators of this discrimination have somehow managed to twist the reality to make themselves the "real" victims, either because liberal outsiders were destroying the Southern way of life on race or because liberals were pushing a "homosexual agenda" in defiance of "the Biblical world view."

As long as many white Southerners hold to the righteousness of their discrimination against others, there is only so much the Democratic Party can do – or should do – to win back the South."


race baiting politics alive and well in the south!. So we can't fall for the okey doke when someone says "MLK or Malcolm X or Medgar Evers or Marcus Garvey or Mandela held republican views!" That's just a ploy. We have to look at what holding republican views meant historically for black people.

U know what I hate the most?

Conservative Blacks who use the "party of lincoln" mantra to justify the self-destructive policies they are pushing today! get real!
Truthfully speaking,

Neither party (republican/democratic) is of any true benefit to black people.

It is 'black-collective economic power' that will make Washington sit up and take notice...!

I discovered this topic while listening The Bev Smith Show last week.

The comments generated here have been very interesting...!

Thank you all for responding!
quote:
Originally posted by kresge:
quote:
Originally posted by Empty Purnata:
If MLK was a Republican, his political economic views certainly did not reflect his party affiliation.

I wonder what those nutters at www.martinlutherking.org or their proponents and advocates would think about such an assertion, especially in light of their persistent claims about MLK being a Communist.


LOL, yeah that looks like a typical McCarthyite Communist witch-hunting tabloid.

MLK wasn't a "Communist" (here in the US that usually means a Marxist-Leninist or a Maoist), but he was a Black Christian Socialist who believed that capitalism is un-Christian, racist and inherently in-egalitarian. At least in the last part of his life.

Looking back, that newspaper has to have been written by some crazed conservative tabloid. Sixty Communist front organizations? When did the man have time to preach and organize or sleep? Eek And if he was a Leninist, why would he be backed by JFK? The Democrats were just as rabidly anti-Communist and oppressive of labor movements as the Republicans. And "racial nationalism" sounds like a Fascist doctrine.
In didn't see much evidence where it said King was a republican. Looks like more propaganda and changing of historical facts on behalf of the republicans. It's an election year you know.

There's much more evidence to support King was a democratic socialist. How any republican can come to the conclusion King was a republican is beyond me.
Could be, Dissident.

Bev Smith was very neutral in her presentation of this information.

IMHO, the bi-partisan machine (republicans/democrats) historically, presently, perpetually--have been non-beneficial to the black race.

Q. When will we learn that it is "our collective economic" power that will move and shake Washington?

A. I know, we still have issues to iron out, right?
quote:
Originally posted by Fine:

IMHO, the bi-partisan machine (republicans/democrats) historically, presently, perpetually--have been non-beneficial to the black race.


Absolutely! I've been saying this for quite some time. This is all the more reason we should wake up and realize we need to engineer our own political party in this country. Dr. Claud Anderson eloquently demonstrates how this can be done in his book Powernomics. Republicans and Democrats don't give a damn about black people.
quote:
Originally posted by Fine:
Affirmative: Socialism-Communism are one and the same
--and are at the other "extreme" end of Capitalism.

It's all a bunch of malarkey: word tricks


I agree with you for the most part.

However, such things aren't "word tricks" if you truly understand what each term means. They are simply labels for different political economic systems. They are only "smokescreens" if you have little understanding of each to begin with and then listen to the White media (which always bastardizes these terms for the gain of White imperialists).

And I object to the common notion that Europe invented these systems.
This is from Wikipedia:

Hopefully it will help explain why MLK may have had republican leanings.

To be a republican in that era meant the opposite of what it means today...


The term Dixiecrat is a portmanteau of Dixie, referring to the Southern United States, and Democrat, referring to the United States Democratic Party. Initially, it referred to a 1948 splinter from the party: for over a century, white Southerners had overwhelmingly been Democrats, but that year many bolted the party and supported Strom Thurmond's third-party candidacy for president of the United States. Over the next several decades, as the white South slowly re-aligned from the Democrats to the Republicans, the term came to have a broader usage, including, for example, with reference to the members of the Electoral College who in the election of 1960 voted for Harry Flood Byrd rather than John F. Kennedy, or the white Southern voters and electors who in 1968 supported George C. Wallace.

The term has also been used to refer to conservative white Southerners who remain within the Democratic Party, and those who were formerly Democrats but now identify as Republicans.
REPUBLICANS USED TO BE DEMOCRATS

THEY ARE NO LONGER THE PARTY OF LINCOLN



In the 1960s, the courting of white Southern Democratic voters was the basis of the "southern strategy" of the Republican Party's Presidential Campaigns. Republican Presidential Candidate Barry Goldwater carried the Deep South in 1964, despite losing in a landslide in the rest of the nation to President Lyndon B. Johnson of Texas. Johnson surmised that his advocacy behind passing the Civil Rights Act of 1964 would lose the South for the Democratic party and it did. The only Democratic presidential candidate after 1956 to solidly carry the Deep South was President Jimmy Carter in the 1976 election.

Senator Strom Thurmond switched parties and became a Republican as a result of his support for the Barry Goldwater campaign in 1964. Former Democrat Jesse Helms also switched his party registration to Republican in 1970 and won a Senate seat in North Carolina in 1972. Phil Gramm of Texas, at the time a member of the House of Representatives, switched his party registration from Democrat to Republican in 1983. Several other Southern senators, such as Richard Russell, Jr. of Georgia and James Eastland and John Stennis of Mississippi remained in the Democratic Party and went on to become prominent senators who served multiple terms in the service of their respective states. These long careers in the Senate elevated their seniority and put them in positions of power and prestige.

Into the twenty-first century, the South has changed from a Democratic monolith to a majority Republican sector of the country with GOP gains in state legislatures. This change, which became quite evident in 1972 with the electoral success of Richard Nixon's "Southern Strategy", peaked with the election of Ronald Reagan in 1980, and was consolidated in 1994 when Republicans gained a majority in the House of Representatives under the leadership of Newt Gingrich.
...'if you truly understand what each term means.'---Empty Purnata

Right...and that's the 'trick'.

In each decade, in which I encountered the philosophies, each has been presented as something 'slightly' different than before, and...

the presenter has ALWAYS the 'explanation' the 'one' has to 'understand' the subtle differences as they are applieds the societal paradigms of our lives and the times we live in, yatta, yatta.

The differences are a mental massage osciety...the 'masses' if you will.

Like all politcal constructions.

That is PRECISELY why such a construction must come from the mind of those to be benefitted, and...

in this case that is US, Americans of unknown African ancestry.


PEACE

Jim Chester

PEACE

Jim Chester
quote:
Empty said--However, such things aren't "word tricks" if you truly understand what each term means.


Such things as "word tricks" are important to know.
I understand that the "Hegelian Dialectic" runs e-v-e-r-y-t-h-i-n-g.

The republican/democratic "facade" is the two-sided machine that appears as a synthesis [i.e. bipartisan is the trick word] that is perpetually engaged in a mock game of antithesis.

The "trick word" democracy broken down is "demon rule". As expressed by Thomas Jefferson AmeriKKKa is actually built around a little bit of a democratic concept sprinkled with a littlle bit of a republic concept, hence demo-republic
http://etext.virginia.edu/jefferson/quotations/jeff0700.htm

"Reading is fundamental"

Add Reply

Post
×
×
×
×
Link copied to your clipboard.
×